JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) This is an application for the
grant of a certificate to appeal to the
Suprems Court of India under Article
134 (1)(c) of the Constitution of India,
against my order, dated 29th August,
1972 in Crl.M.P. No. 1695 of 1972. The
relevant facts for the disposal of this
application are as follows:
(2.) The petitioner herein, D. Venkata
Ranga Reddy, filed a complaint in the
Court of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Anantapur,
against the 1st respondent herein and three other Sub-Inspectors of
Police for offences under sections
166, 202, 330, 365, 367, 368 and 324, read
with sections 109, 114 and 34, Indian
Penal Code. This complaint was registered as P.R.G. No. 19 of 1971. One of the
Sub-Inspectors named S.K. John (Accused in P.R.G. No. 19 of 1971) also filed
a charge-sheet against D. Venkata Ranga
Reddy, in the Court of the same Magistrate on 17th December, 1971, under
sections 353, 211, 212 and 224, Indian
Penal Code, read with section 47 of the
Andhra Pradesh District Police Act. On
that very day i.e., 17h December, 1971,
one S.G.Mairathnam, Inspector of
Police, Ananthapur filed a memo., requesting the Court to return the
chargesheet. The learned Migistrate passed
an order to return the charge-sheet to
the Police authorities.
(3.) A. Subhash Chandra Bose, another
accused in P.R.G. No. 19 of 1971 filed a
petition, Crl.M.P.No. 1965 of 1972 under
section 461-A, Criminal. Procedure Code,
this Court to quash the order of the
Magistrate directing return of the chargesheet.
In this proceeding, the petitioner
herein (who is the accused in the said
charge-sheet which was directed to be
returned) was made a party. After
hearing the arguments of both the
Counsels for the parties and the Public
Prosecutor, this Court quashed the order
of the Magistrate directing return of the
charge-sheet to the police authorities
on the ground that once the charge-sheet
is received by the Court, inasmuch as
there is no provision in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, empowering a
Magistrate to return the charge-sheet to the
police authorities, the Magistrate has
to proceed with it in accordance with
the provisions of the Code. Aggrieved
by the said order of this Court, the
petitioner herein who is the accused in
the said charge-sheet, has preferred this
application for the grant of a certificate
under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution that the case is a fit one for appeal
to the Supreme Court. Article 134(1)(c) of
the Constitution requires that
the order of the High Court sought to be
appealed against, should be a final
order in a criminal proceeding, and the
case should be a fit one for appeal to the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
and the High Courts in various decisions
have laid down a number of tests to
ascertain whether an order is final or
not. The question has to be considered
in its two aspects viz.: (1) the nature of
proceeding before the High Court; and
(2) the nature of the order made in the
proceeding. The Supreme Court has
held in Ramesh v. Gendalal Motilal Patni,
that if the proceeding before the High
Court is an independent proceeding
such as an application under Article 226
of the Constitution, independent of the
original controversy between the parties,
the finality or otherwise of the order
made therein cannot be judged with
reference to its effect on the original
controversy between the parties as against
which the writ is filed. In other words
the order would be final as regards the
question decided irrespective of the fact
that the controversy before the inferior
tribunal is still alive. But if the order of
the High Court is made in a proceeding
like revision or appeal which should be
considered as a continuation of the
original controversy, the finality of the
order must be judged in relation to the
effect of the order on the original controversy between the parties. If the
original controversy is still alive and
awaited decision, the order cannot be
considered final. That brings the
second aspect into consideration. If the
proceeding before the High Court is
not an independent proceeding but a
proceeding in the nature of a revision or
appeal or one in continuation of the
original proceeding, the nature of the
order should be such that it determines
the controversy in question, vide
Mohinlal v. State of Gujarat.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.